Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

57. Contention of the appellant that the court will have to scrutinise the questions put to the accused during interrogation and answers given by the appellant and satisfy itself whether the answers were “evasive or not”, would amount to conducting “mini trial” and substituting court’s view over the view of the investigating agency about the “cooperation” or “evasiveness” of the accused and thereafter, the court to decide the questions of grant of anticipatory bail. This contention is far-fetched and does not merit acceptance.

58. As rightly submitted by learned Solicitor General that if the accused are to be confronted with the materials which were collected by the prosecution/Enforcement Directorate with huge efforts, it would lead to devastating consequences and would defeat the very purpose of the investigation into crimes, in particular, white collar offences. If the contention of the appellant is to be accepted, the investigating agency will have to question each and every accused such materials collected during investigation and in this process, the investigating agency would be exposing the evidence collected by them with huge efforts using their men and resources and this would give a chance to the accused to tamper with the evidence and to destroy the money trail apart from paving the way for the accused to influence the witnesses. If the contention of the appellant is to be accepted that the accused will have to be questioned with the materials and the investigating agency has to satisfy the court that the accused was “evasive” during interrogation, the court will have to undertake a “mini trial” of scrutinizing the matter at intermediary stages of investigation like interrogation of the accused and the answers elicited from the accused and to find out whether the answers given by the accused are ‘evasive’ or whether they are ‘satisfactory’ or not. This could have never been the intention of the legislature either under PMLA or any other statute.

59. Interrogation of the accused and the answers elicited from the accused and the opinion whether the answers given by the accused are “satisfactory” or “evasive”, is purely within the domain of the investigating agency and the court cannot substitute its views by conducting mini trial at various stages of the investigation.

60. The investigation of a cognizable offence and the various stages thereon including the interrogation of the accused is exclusively reserved for the investigating agency whose powers are unfettered so long as the investigating officer exercises his investigating powers well within the provisions of the law and the legal bounds. In exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court can interfere and issue appropriate direction only when the court is convinced that the power of the investigating officer is exercised mala fide or where there is abuse of power and non-compliance of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. However, this power of invoking inherent jurisdiction to issue direction and interfering with the investigation is exercised only in rare cases where there is abuse of process or non-compliance of the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code.

66. Whether direction to produce the transcripts could be issued:-

Contention of the appellant is that it has not been placed before the court as to what were the questions/aspects on which the appellant was interrogated on 19.12.2018, 01.01.2019 and 21.01.2019 and the Enforcement Directorate has not been able to show as to how the answers given by the appellant are “evasive”. It was submitted that the investigating agency-Enforcement Directorate cannot expect the accused to give answers in the manner they want and the investigating agency should always keep in their mind the rights of the accused protected under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Since the interrogation of the accused and the questions put to the accused and the answers given by the accused are part of the investigation which is purely within the domain of the investigation officer, unless satisfied that the police officer has improperly and illegally exercised his investigating powers in breach of any statutory provision, the court cannot interfere. In the present case, no direction could be issued to the respondent to produce the transcripts of the questions put to the appellant and answers given by the appellant.